Go to page

Banned

The problem with console Crysis is that it looks fine on screenshots, but like ass when you start moving around. Games with inconsistent framerates are a fucking disgrace. I'd rather they push less pretty stuff and focus on making the framerate locked, be it 30 fps or 60 fps, but locked.

60 fps 60 fps 60 fps 60 fps 30 fps 60 fps 60 fps 30 fps

Doom 3 and HL2 were PC games and took full advantage of those. Crysis 2 on the other hand was a console game with console hardware in mind. That`s a complete different case.
Crytek even kept the terrible weak console textures in the PC version.

And i highly disagree with you that the current consoles are still pretty capable. It about time for new hardware.

Sure, but Crysis 1 was a PC game through and through. It pushed the platform much harder in 2007 than Doom 3 or Half-Life 2 did back in 2004.

Despite that they were able to recreate the game on consoles without sacrificing the gameplay. What Crysis 1 on consoles delivers is much more impressive than HL2 or Doom 3 on XBOX.

The problem with console Crysis is that it looks fine on screenshots, but like ass when you start moving around. Games with inconsistent framerates are a fucking disgrace. I'd rather they push less pretty stuff and focus on making the framerate locked, be it 30 fps or 60 fps, but locked.

That's pretty god damned smooth, if you ask me. Sure, it's not as detailed as the PC version, but it still holds up very well and proves that the original Crysis was not too ambitious for dated console hardware.

Member

The problem with console Crysis is that it looks fine on screenshots, but like ass when you start moving around. Games with inconsistent framerates are a fucking disgrace. I'd rather they push less pretty stuff and focus on making the framerate locked, be it 30 fps or 60 fps, but locked.

Banned

It can be pretty and locked at 30 fps. Developers just haven't realized that the costumer notices it, even if he doesn't know what it is.
Look at Call of Duty, the success isn't just because it's a war game with focus on online and ridiculous perks/killstreaks, it's because of how it feels to play.

I don't even ask for 60 any longer, I just want the framerate to be locked. You can have the prettiest game in the world, if it runs at 15 fps, it's no good.

Banned

It can be pretty and locked at 30 fps. Developers just haven't realized that the costumer notices it, even if he doesn't know what it is.
Look at Call of Duty, the success isn't just because it's a war game with focus on online and ridiculous perks/killstreaks, it's because of how it feels to play.

I don't even ask for 60 any longer, I just want the framerate to be locked. You can have the prettiest game in the world, if it runs at 15 fps, it's no good.

60 fps 60 fps 60 fps 60 fps 30 fps 60 fps 60 fps 30 fps

It actually has, though. They've made a number of changes and optimizations to the engine. Better texturing techniques, more complex lighting and shaders, greater particle density with less of a performance hit, etc. It hasn't been a massive leap forward or anything but it still looks nice and they have definitely enhanced it.

Banned

It actually has, though. They've made a number of changes and optimizations to the engine. Better texturing techniques, more complex lighting and shaders, greater particle density with less of a performance hit, etc. It hasn't been a massive leap forward or anything but it still looks nice and they have definitely enhanced it.

Member

It doesn't prove your point though. How can we accurately see the improvements in a horribly compressed Youtube video? On top of that, we should be looking at the campaign, not MP, since that is where graphics typically shine in games.

Member

It can be pretty and locked at 30 fps. Developers just haven't realized that the costumer notices it, even if he doesn't know what it is.
Look at Call of Duty, the success isn't just because it's a war game with focus on online and ridiculous perks/killstreaks, it's because of how it feels to play.

I don't even ask for 60 any longer, I just want the framerate to be locked. You can have the prettiest game in the world, if it runs at 15 fps, it's no good.

Anyways, I see you were comparing multiplayer while I was talking about single player (where the engine refinements are most obvious). Multiplayer maps always seem to limit visual flair for competitive purposes so the differences are not astounding.

Banned

Eh, I'd say what they are achieving here is more impressive than what developers delivered on the original XBOX when it was more recent. I mean, Doom 3 and Half-Life 2 were equivalents back in 2004 yet both of those games were heavily compromised on XBOX.

Crysis 1 and 2 were much more accurate on 360 and PS3 than those games were on XBOX. Of course that ignores the fact that Doom 3 and HL2 would have been impossible on PS2 or even Gamecube.

So, despite their age, I'd say the current consoles are still pretty capable.

And to those that claim Crysis 2 on consoles sucked....eh i totally disagree..it was a awesome game and one of the best looking shooters thus far on current systems. Sure it was subHD and the frame rate was not pristine perfect but to say the game was unplayable and not enjoyable is just trolling imho

Banned

wow I didn't realise Crysis 2 was hated so much, surely it's in the top 10 at least for best looking console game?, I was very impressed with it graphically on the 360 and the framerate really wasn't that bad, the motion blur helped a lot in that respect, I don't think you can discount it just because it was sub HD, look at Alan Wake for example, one of lowest resolutions in a console game this gen and looks perfectly fine, and outside of gaff I haven't heard one person complain about the frame-rate.

Here at GAF..you will see some real hardcore nitpickers that are not in it to enjoy games but rather be butt hurt over the littlest things just to rain on the party of some good games..some are just in it to take sides..pc vs consoles or consoles vs pc ..so you must take opinions around here with a grain of salt rather than allow it to steer you're way of gaming.

I learned a long time ago that to go by my own feelings..im a straight shooter..i'll play any good game that's a good game and i dont tend to put a game under the microscope and allow the littlest things to ruin my gaming experience like some do. This is why i can enjoy many more games than a lot of these nit pickers..while they are getting all butt hurt over stuff like this..im enjoying games they avoid.

Banned

why? my PC runs Crysis 2 DX11 with everything maxed out and gets around 60 fps (not locked, average). i doubt Crysis 3's tech is going to be markedly different. C2 is also the best looking game i've seen to date (not talking about art).

Member

Banned

I still stand by what I said. Crysis 2 should have been to 2011 what the first game was to 2007. Targeting consoles during development means something has to give. Crysis 2 is prettier in some respects (after the PC update), but less impressive in others (level linearity, physics, and envrionement interaction).

The engine is capable, so why after 5 years are we only seeing a marginal increase in visuals and a decrease in level scope?

Banned

Good to see no one on GAF is crazy enough to put forth the argument that the PS3/360 as just as powerful as current high end PCs. I'm browsing Teamxbox on another tab and there is a 15+ page argument going on that 360/PS3 are "easily" just as capable as a high end PC. (No I'm being serious, it's truly lol worthy).

The first was pretty, more 'in-your-face', and sports a better aesthetic than C1. It also has far less environmental destruction and MUCH smaller MUCH more linear maps. So yeah, marginal (especially considering the time gap).

The enhanced DX11 version with tesselation and higher res textures is a bit closer to what I originally expected from the game at launch. Still not what I imagined an exclusively PC developed version would look like though. Of course, we can then compare to modded Crysis 1, which mitigates some of the punch.

Look, I understand WHY we got the Crysis 2 that we did (made them bank by targeting three major platforms). I'm simply pointing out that resources ARE limited, and a game as potentially as big Crysis being stretched across three different platforms (where one has a canyon sized advantage) means sacrifices to its visual potential (and with Crysis, a lot of the gameplay derived from technical proficiency) .

While it does suck that we aren't seeing boundaries being pushed faster and harder on the tech end, it also means we still get great looking games that RUN smooth as silk. Our computer hardware is probably getting more mileage this gen, than any other. At least my wallet is safe!

The thing with the Call of Duty series is that due to its aim for 60fps on consoles, it runs at like 200fps on my PC, which means I can slap 4xSSAA on it and the shit still runs at like 90fps. I can deal with its visuals if it delivers that kind of performance, honestly.

Banned

The thing with the Call of Duty series is that due to its aim for 60fps on consoles, it runs at like 200fps on my PC, which means I can slap 4xSSAA on it and the shit still runs at like 90fps. I can deal with its visuals if it delivers that kind of performance, honestly.

Cock Encumbered

The first was pretty, more 'in-your-face', and sports a better aesthetic than C1. It also has far less environmental destruction and MUCH smaller MUCH more linear maps. So yeah, marginal (especially considering the time gap).

Member

That's pretty god damned smooth, if you ask me. Sure, it's not as detailed as the PC version, but it still holds up very well and proves that the original Crysis was not too ambitious for dated console hardware.

Yeah, I think people are misunderstanding some of the AI problems. The game mechanics simply demand MUCH more from the AI than most games would ever have to consider. In regards to the stealth functions I'd say it's one of the most difficult things to balance. If you make it too difficult to "disappear" that function could become frustrating and useless the second you break stealth (leading to trial and error retries) while making it too easy results in AI that appears stupid. They didn't quite find the right balance but I really didn't think it was that awful.

I'm glad they went for slightly less aggressive AI than overly aggressive. Their original Far Cry AI was complete shit for that reason. You could be spotted half a mile from a village which would result in every active enemy on the map becoming aware of your position. It simply wasn't fun.

What they DO need to work on, I think, is individualizing enemy encounters a bit more. You should be able to break stealth without alerting the group at large. Now if the AI fires their weapon or makes a call on the radio, sure, the rest of the enemies should now be hunting you. However, if you are spotted, there should be an initial element of surprise or something that makes it feel as if you snuck up on them. I always thought Metal Gear handled this really well in that it made each enemy feel like an individual threat that you could deal with in a number of ways. If they spotted you there was still a chance of eliminating them before they call for help.

Most shooters simply don't have these circumstances to contend with. Crysis is neither a straight stealth game nor a full on shooter. They need their AI to handle the best of both worlds and everything in between in addition to coping with a super powered suit. It's a huge challenge I'm sure.

Which is why I wish they'd bring the CE3 version of the first Crysis to PC. It'd run so much better, and mods with that new lighting would be amazing.

On top of that I actually really liked the changes they made to the interface. It's more streamlined but doesn't sacrifice the functionality present in the original game. They did a really good job with the conversion.

Crysis on the 360 (not played or seen the PS3 version) is fantastic. Certainly felt more smoother than Crysis 2 and considering some of the setpieces (The mountain collapse,The alien ship and the warship battle) and the sheer size of the island i can only applaud Crytek for bringing it over.

That's why when people are talking shit about consoles potentially holding back the third game i invite them to if they can lower themselves to such debased activity to go and play at least the 360 version if they can, and be pleasantly surprised.

I always suspected porting Crysis this late was a test to see just how big they can make the stages in Crysis 3 and the reveal of that game certainly shows which direction they are taking it.

I'm not sure Crytek is interested in pushing the PC platform to its limits ala Crysis 1 as that actually resulted in a lot of headaches for them at the time.

Also, I think PC gamers have grown accustomed to high framerates and great image quality so releasing a game that really pushes PC hardware to its limits would result in a lot of compromise on the performance/image quality end. When Crysis was first released nobody was playing at 60 fps and a lot of people had to drop the resolution well below that of their monitors.

If a PC game is released that routinely dips below 30 fps even at modest resolutions what sort of reaction would it receive, I wonder?